If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I know the status ailments themselves aren't type-exclusive and that Game Freak could just make new moves in the future that inflict poison but is a Flying-type or something like that. But such moves would have to be created later, and it's each of the types now and their moves now that are being focused on.

It doesn't matter if they have not done it yet the fact still remains that the possibility still exists

Out of every move that can inflict poison without any special modifier, only one is not Poison-type, and Twinneedle is very rarely used. Therefore, poison is pretty much the only type that can inflict poison reliably, and thus has that to back it up.

That's not a viable excuse. Twineedle is still a non-poison Type move that inflicts the poison status, how often it is used does not matter, it still exists.

I didn't say anything about a type having more things going for it strictly outclassing one that has less things going for it. Yes, Fire-type moves generally can burn and generally have high power, and Fire does have more things going for it than Poison does. But none of that means, explicitly or implicitly, that Poison is outclassed by any other type.

Because Fire has more going for it then Poison IS the reason it outclasses Poison type. Which leads back to my original argument that the Type chart is indeed broken.

Worst type is Poison. Bug is also awful. Bug's only redeeming trait is the fact that it beats Psychic and Dark. On the other hand, it's Not Very Effective against six different types, and it's weak to Fire, Flying, and Rock (stealth rock weakness = salt in the wound), all of which are fairly common types to run across.

Ice is another rough type. But I'm partial to it, so I'm not going to be too harsh. I just don't see the point in having an Ice-type to, let's be real here, kill dragons (it's basically Ice's only purpose), when most dragons learn Flamethrower. It will kill your *** before you're even able to hit them with an Ice Beam. Most Water types learn Ice movies, so they're much better alternatives.

It doesn't matter if they have not done it yet the fact still remains that the possibility still exists

The possibility obviously still exists. But the question is whether or not the Poison type is bad in its current state. Bringing up future possibilities changes the question entirely to another question that can't really be answered, since nobody knows what kinds of moves the next generation will bring to each of the types.

That's not a viable excuse. Twineedle is still a non-poison Type move that inflicts the poison status, how often it is used does not matter, it still exists.

Twineedle being able to poison yet being a Bug-type isn't an excuse to back up Poison; if anything, it's a move that makes the Poison type less special.

Because Fire has more going for it then Poison IS the reason it outclasses Poison type. Which leads back to my original argument that the Type chart is indeed broken.

Type A outclasses type B if and only if type A can do everything that type B can. I emphasize again that at this current state, the Fire type cannot poison, and the Poison type cannot burn. Because of this, one strictly cannot say that Fire outclasses Poison.

The possibility obviously still exists. But the question is whether or not the Poison type is bad in its current state. Bringing up future possibilities changes the question entirely to another question that can't really be answered, since nobody knows what kinds of moves the next generation will bring to each of the types.

Yes the poison Type is bad in its current state, thus me saying the Type chart is broken. Bringing up future possibilities doesn't change the question at all. Because unless they change the Poison types Super effectiveness and resistance capabilities it will still remain nerfed compared to other types regardless of what new moves they make.

Type A outclasses type B if and only if type A can do everything that type B can. I emphasize again that at this current state, the Fire type cannot poison, and the Poison type cannot burn. Because of this, one strictly cannot say that Fire outclasses Poison.

I'll just emphasize this again then, The status ailments are not exclusive to one Type. If they wanted to make a Fire Type move that can inflict the poison status they can, if they wanted a Poison Type move that can inflict the burn status, they can. It does not matter whether currently they have made it or not, it can still be made. So yes Fire type can do everything the Poison Type can except better therefore it outclasses the Poison type

It's not the moves or the ability to inflict status that makes one Type better than the other it's the offensive and defensive capabilities.

Yes the poison Type is bad in its current state, thus me saying the Type chart is broken. Bringing up future possibilities doesn't change the question at all. Because unless they change the Poison types Super effectiveness and resistance capabilities it will still remain nerfed compared to other types regardless of what new moves they make.

Bringing up future possibilities does change the question. The current question has to do with whether or not a type is bad based on what each type has access to now. Bringing up future possibilities changes the question to having to do with whether or not a type is bad based on what each type has access to both now and in the future. Changing to such a question is bad because what each type has access to won't be known, and so people can only assume based on current trends (which is bad in practice).

I'll just emphasize this again then, The status ailments are not exclusive to one Type. If they wanted to make a Fire Type move that can inflict the poison status they can, if they wanted a Poison Type move that can inflict the burn status, they can.

But they haven't. What is being answered is whether or not a type is bad based on the current game, and the fact that they haven't added the moves that you describe means that answers cannot assume their existence.

It does not matter whether currently they have made it or not, it can still be made. So yes Fire type can do everything the Poison Type can except better therefore it outclasses the Poison type

Based on this, Game Freak could make the Poison type super effective against Grass, Water, Dragon, Normal, and Fighting, making the Poison type "outclass" the Fire type.

It's not the moves or the ability to inflict status that makes one Type better than the other it's the offensive and defensive capabilities.

Whether or not a type is good or bad isn't dependent only on offensive and defensive capabilities. There's more to determining whether a type is good than just offensive and defensive potential. By considering only offensive and defensive potential, one practically automatically assumes that types that don't rely on either are "bad", which is flawed reasoning.

The opinion that they make based on that reasoning isn't bad, but rather just made due to looking at just offense and defense.

What I'm saying is that hypothetical mechanics cannot be a factor in an answer to whether or not any particular type is bad in the current game.

Bringing up future possibilities does change the question. The current question has to do with whether or not a type is bad based on what each type has access to now. Bringing up future possibilities changes the question to having to do with whether or not a type is bad based on what each type has access to both now and in the future. Changing to such a question is bad because what each type has access to won't be known, and so people can only assume based on current trends (which is bad in practice).

But they haven't. What is being answered is whether or not a type is bad based on the current game, and the fact that they haven't added the moves that you describe means that answers cannot assume their existence.

It's like you aren't even reading my posts fully -.-

I keep repeating, it does not matter. If there were a rule stating that the Type is directly correlated to the status ailments then no I cannot make such an assumption BUT because of how the mechanic currently works one can assume that.

Based on this, Game Freak could make the Poison type super effective against Grass, Water, Dragon, Normal, and Fighting, making the Poison type "outclass" the Fire type.

Exactly.

Whether or not a type is good or bad isn't dependent only on offensive and defensive capabilities. There's more to determining whether a type is good than just offensive and defensive potential. By considering only offensive and defensive potential, one practically automatically assumes that types that don't rely on either are "bad", which is flawed reasoning.

The opinion that they make based on that reasoning isn't bad, but rather just made due to looking at just offense and defense.

What I'm saying is that hypothetical mechanics cannot be a factor in an answer to whether or not any particular type is bad in the current game.

Yes it is because what are the Types purpose? To inflict or to resist damage based on the opposing Type. Nothing else factors in determining whether or not a Type is better. Status ailments don't because as I've said they are directly related to any Type. Each of the Types do the same thing some are better at it than other in certain aspects. Example: Steel resists more than Types than Ice. there fore Steel Outclasses Ice in that aspect. However in Overall aspects as in "if this type is better than this" Steel is better than poison because it resists more and is super effective against more.

I keep repeating, it does not matter. If there were a rule stating that the Type is directly correlated to the status ailments then no I cannot make such an assumption BUT because of how the mechanic currently works one can assume that.

Of course you can make the assumption, but by doing so, you're answering a different question. I'm not trying to answer that question, and neither should you. If one considers hypothetical move possibilities that make certain more powerful and ignore others, then there's no point in answering the question in the first place.

Yes it is because what are the Types purpose? To inflict or to resist damage based on the opposing Type. Nothing else factors in determining whether or not a Type is better.

Then why did Game Freak make a type whose primary purpose isn't to inflict super effective damage but rather to inflict status ailments? If the purpose of a type is to either defend or attack, then there'd be almost no point to the Poison type at all, since it doesn't particularly do either well. They could just have never made the type to begin with.

But the fact that they did shows that there's more to a type than just offense and defense.

Status ailments don't because as I've said they are directly related to any Type. Each of the Types do the same thing some are better at it than other in certain aspects. Example: Steel resists more than Types than Ice. there fore Steel Outclasses Ice in that aspect. However in Overall aspects as in "if this type is better than this" Steel is better than poison because it resists more and is super effective against more.

Let's try again.

Steel resists a bunch of types. Steel is super effective against two types. I don't believe Steel can inflict status ailments, and even if it can, it has very few moves that can do so.

Poison resists a significantly fewer number of types. Poison is super effective against one type. How does Poison balance out with Steel, then? It has access to poison, which Steel doesn't have.

Factor in a few other types.

Psychic resists very few types. Psychic is super effective against two or three types. Psychic makes up for these low numbers of resistances and super-effective relationships by having a wide variety of support moves.

Electric resists a relatively few number of types, too. Electric is super effective against at least two types. But Electric is only weak to one type, and it has access to the (not-so-exclusive) paralysis status.

...and on and on.

When comparing two types' "overall performance", that means comparing everything about them. Because offense and defense aren't the only aspects of a type, it isn't just unfair to assume Poison is worse than Steel because Steel is super effective against more types and resists more types--it's wrong. (And besides, Steel is weak to three types, whereas Poison is weak to two.)

Of course you can make the assumption, but by doing so, you're answering a different question. I'm not trying to answer that question, and neither should you. If one considers hypothetical move possibilities that make certain more powerful and ignore others, then there's no point in answering the question in the first place.

That's how the mechanic works so one can assume it. It does not change the question just opens up the possible answers.

Then why did Game Freak make a type whose primary purpose isn't to inflict super effective damage but rather to inflict status ailments? If the purpose of a type is to either defend or attack, then there'd be almost no point to the Poison type at all, since it doesn't particularly do either well. They could just have never made the type to begin with.

But the fact that they did shows that there's more to a type than just offense and defense.

Not exactly. The poison Type primary purpose, just as any other type is to inflict or to resist damage based on the opposing Type, as i've said. The status ailments have no connection to the Type of the move. You would have to ask Game freak themselves why they made the poison type so bad, i don't have the answer to that

Let's try again.

Steel resists a bunch of types. Steel is super effective against two types. I don't believe Steel can inflict status ailments, and even if it can, it has very few moves that can do so.

Poison resists a significantly fewer number of types. Poison is super effective against one type. How does Poison balance out with Steel, then? It has access to poison, which Steel doesn't have.

Factor in a few other types.

Psychic resists very few types. Psychic is super effective against two or three types. Psychic makes up for these low numbers of resistances and super-effective relationships by having a wide variety of support moves.

Electric resists a relatively few number of types, too. Electric is super effective against at least two types. But Electric is only weak to one type, and it has access to the (not-so-exclusive) paralysis status.

...and on and on.

When comparing two types' "overall performance", that means comparing everything about them. Because offense and defense aren't the only aspects of a type, it isn't just unfair to assume Poison is worse than Steel because Steel is super effective against more types and resists more types--it's wrong. (And besides, Steel is weak to three types, whereas Poison is weak to two.)

You just contradicted your previous post with this post. I previously asked you:

"by your logic you are saying that the Poison Type gimmick of inflicting the poison status is what makes up for it's lack of offense and defense, correct? but what about Fire Type? Fire Type is super effective against 4 Types and resists 5 and to add to that most moves that inflict burn are Fire Type moves."

and you responded:

"I didn't say anything about a type having more things going for it strictly outclassing one that has less things going for it. Yes, Fire-type moves generally can burn and generally have high power, and Fire does have more things going for it than Poison does. But none of that means, explicitly or implicitly, that Poison is outclassed by any other type."

So according to this logic Fire Type is better than the Poison Type. But as I said the moves and status ailments play no role in whether or not the Type is better than another because the same can apply to any other Type.

That's how the mechanic works so one can assume it. It does not change the question just opens up the possible answers.

Whether or not increasing the number of things with which to create an answer means changing the question or opening up possible answers doesn't actually matter. Whatever you want to call that doesn't change the fact that what's being asked is whether or not a type is bad based on what's currently in the game.

Not exactly. The poison Type primary purpose, just as any other type is to inflict or to resist damage based on the opposing Type, as i've said. The status ailments have no connection to the Type of the move. You would have to ask Game freak themselves why they made the poison type so bad, i don't have the answer to that

Perhaps I wasn't being too clear. Any type's primary purpose is to deal damage. How a type goes about dealing that damage, though, is different, and just because a type doesn't directly deal more damage or efficiently resist damage doesn't mean that they're automatically "bad". "Bad" at directly dealing damage, or "bad" at defending, sure, but that doesn't mean the type itself is bad.

You just contradicted your previous post with this post. I previously asked you:

"by your logic you are saying that the Poison Type gimmick of inflicting the poison status is what makes up for it's lack of offense and defense, correct? but what about Fire Type? Fire Type is super effective against 4 Types and resists 5 and to add to that most moves that inflict burn are Fire Type moves."

and you responded:

"I didn't say anything about a type having more things going for it strictly outclassing one that has less things going for it. Yes, Fire-type moves generally can burn and generally have high power, and Fire does have more things going for it than Poison does. But none of that means, explicitly or implicitly, that Poison is outclassed by any other type."

So according to this logic Fire Type is better than the Poison Type.

Where did I say that the Fire type is better than the Poison type in the stuff that you quoted? "Fire has more things going for it than Poison does" doesn't mean that Fire is better than Poison.

But as I said the moves and status ailments play no role in whether or not the Type is better than another because the same can apply to any other Type.

The same can apply to any other type, but it hasn't.

Let me ask the question again: From what currently exists in the game, what types are "bad" and why? (Do not bring up hypothetical moves or any of that stuff, since those are not things that exist in the game.)

Whether or not increasing the number of things with which to create an answer means changing the question or opening up possible answers doesn't actually matter. Whatever you want to call that doesn't change the fact that what's being asked is whether or not a type is bad based on what's currently in the game.

It does matter because by not using the assumptions you are leaving out the mechanics and there is no rule saying certain types are tied down to certain status ailments so it's plausible to make an assumption from that. It's like in a game of Chess, You are only allowed to move on the board so it plausible to make an assumption as to where the piece can land based on how the rules work even if the player has not moved yet.

The question was not "is the Type bad?" though, but rather "Is this type better than this?" the poison Type compared to the other Types is bad thus be stating The Type chart is broken.

Perhaps I wasn't being too clear. Any type's primary purpose is to deal damage. How a type goes about dealing that damage, though, is different, and just because a type doesn't directly deal more damage or efficiently resist damage doesn't mean that they're automatically "bad". "Bad" at directly dealing damage, or "bad" at defending, sure, but that doesn't mean the type itself is bad.

Um no. All the Types deal the damage the same way. No Type deals more damage than other based solely on the fact that it is a certain type, but rather some types have more variety in which to deal damage ex. Fighting being more super effective on more types than poison.

I guess i should not have said poison Type in itself is bad but rather compared to other types it's badly nerfed, meaning it is at a disadvantage.

Where did I say that the Fire type is better than the Poison type in the stuff that you quoted? "Fire has more things going for it than Poison does" doesn't mean that Fire is better than Poison.

You were bringing up the gimmicks of how the Type "makes up" for it's lack off but Fire Does not need anything to make up its Lack of anything, it's pretty strong as it is so why are most moves that have access to the burn status ailment fire type? According to your logic Fire type has access to burn(even though it doesn't) to make up for something and since Fire and Poison basically do the same thing and Fire does it better, Fire is better.

The same can apply to any other type, but it hasn't.

Doesn't matter as I said, it can still be applied.

Let me ask the question again: From what currently exists in the game, what types are "bad" and why? (Do not bring up hypothetical moves or any of that stuff, since those are not things that exist in the game.)

No Types are necessarily bad. But compared to other types Poison is badly nerfed because of it's lack of offense and defense(which is what makes a Type better than another because that is the Types "overall performance").

Poison is not really that bad of a defensive type, psychic attacks are somewhat scarce and the terrible abundance of Earthquake makes it somewhat weak, but it resists Grass, Poison, Bug and Fighting (fighting types are everywhere), so it's not exactly bottom of the barrel defensively, actually it can be quite good, specially with levitate

It does matter because by not using the assumptions you are leaving out the mechanics and there is no rule saying certain types are tied down to certain status ailments so it's plausible to make an assumption from that. It's like in a game of Chess, You are only allowed to move on the board so it plausible to make an assumption as to where the piece can land based on how the rules work even if the player has not moved yet.

The question was not "is the Type bad?" though, but rather "Is this type better than this?" the poison Type compared to the other Types is bad thus be stating The Type chart is broken.

What mechanics would I be leaving out? The mechanics that are hypothetically introduced along with those hypothetical moves? The question doesn't even consider such mechanics, so leaving them out does no harm.

Chess is different from Pokémon move implementation in that the game of chess does not change over time. No matter when, the game of chess will always stay the same, with eight pawns, two knights, two rooks, two bishops, a queen and a king. Pokémon does change over time, so when asking a question such as whether a type is better than another or whether a type is bad, the time frame must be restricted. In this case, the time frame is restricted to the fifth generation, and not how the game would be with hypothetical moves.

Um no. All the Types deal the damage the same way. No Type deals more damage than other based solely on the fact that it is a certain type, but rather some types have more variety in which to deal damage ex. Fighting being more super effective on more types than poison.

You say that some types have more variety in which to deal damage, right? Why isn't the poison status ailment one of these varieties to deal damage, then? Based on what you've said, it may not be exclusive to one type, but that doesn't change the fact that Poison has access to the poison status ailment.

You were bringing up the gimmicks of how the Type "makes up" for it's lack off but Fire Does not need anything to make up its Lack of anything, it's pretty strong as it is so why are most moves that have access to the burn status ailment fire type? According to your logic Fire type has access to burn(even though it doesn't) to make up for something and since Fire and Poison basically do the same thing and Fire does it better, Fire is better.

Fire and Poison basically do the same thing. That doesn't mean that Fire and Poison do the same thing.

Yes, I said that Fire has access to burn. Yes, I said that Poison has access to poison. One can assume that I say that poison and burn do basically the same thing, but nowhere did I say that Fire is outright better than Poison because of this.

"Since Fire and Poison basically do the same thing and Fire does it better, Fire is better" is misleading; you're comparing the status ailments that each type can inflict, not the actual types themselves. "Burn and poison basically do the same thing; since burn does it better, burn is better" is less misleading.

Doesn't matter as I said, it can still be applied.

Where would your application of hypothetical moves make sense? A plausible answer can't be obtained when hypothetical, made-up moves can just be made up on the spot to disprove another answer. The cycle would never end.

No Types are necessarily bad. But compared to other types Poison is badly nerfed because of it's lack of offense and defense(which is what makes a Type better than another because that is the Types "overall performance").

You're using "overall" in an incorrect way. The "overall" performance of a type encompasses every aspect of a type, two of which are offense and defense. Whatever happened to Grass's support and healing (Leech Seed, Giga Drain, Ingrain) and Poison and Ghosts' debilitation (Curse, Confuse Ray, Toxic)?

What mechanics would I be leaving out? The mechanics that are hypothetically introduced along with those hypothetical moves? The question doesn't even consider such mechanics, so leaving them out does no harm.

The mechanics are not hypothetical, the mechanics that are currently installed says that no move is tied down to a certain Type. You are speaking as if in the future they change that mechanics. But they haven't.

Chess is different from Pokémon move implementation in that the game of chess does not change over time. No matter when, the game of chess will always stay the same, with eight pawns, two knights, two rooks, two bishops, a queen and a king. Pokémon does change over time, so when asking a question such as whether a type is better than another or whether a type is bad, the time frame must be restricted. In this case, the time frame is restricted to the fifth generation, and not how the game would be with hypothetical moves.

And no matter what Pokemon mechanics may stay the same. So unless they plan to change the mechanics in the future its fine to make such an assumption.

You say that some types have more variety in which to deal damage, right? Why isn't the poison status ailment one of these varieties to deal damage, then? Based on what you've said, it may not be exclusive to one type, but that doesn't change the fact that Poison has access to the poison status ailment.

As I said before I'm not the one who designed the types you would have to ask Game freak that themselves. And it does not change the fact that not only Poison Type has access to the Poison status ailment themselves.

Fire and Poison basically do the same thing. That doesn't mean that Fire and Poison do the same thing.

Yes, I said that Fire has access to burn. Yes, I said that Poison has access to poison. One can assume that I say that poison and burn do basically the same thing, but nowhere did I say that Fire is outright better than Poison because of this.

"Since Fire and Poison basically do the same thing and Fire does it better, Fire is better" is misleading; you're comparing the status ailments that each type can inflict, not the actual types themselves. "Burn and poison basically do the same thing; since burn does it better, burn is better" is less misleading.

But you said that the Status ailments ARE part of the Types so I was going by what your logic stated.

Where would your application of hypothetical moves make sense? A plausible answer can't be obtained when hypothetical, made-up moves can just be made up on the spot to disprove another answer. The cycle would never end.

It makes sense because there is no rule saying that those hypothetical moves can't be made, as I've said before. Therefore it's logical to make such an assumption. So unless they changed that rule one cannot make it.

You're using "overall" in an incorrect way. The "overall" performance of a type encompasses every aspect of a type, two of which are offense and defense. Whatever happened to Grass's support and healing (Leech Seed, Giga Drain, Ingrain) and Poison and Ghosts' debilitation (Curse, Confuse Ray, Toxic)?

As I said the moves and what they do are in no way connected to the Type. They could easily make Leech Seed, Giga Drain, Ingrain, Curse, Confuse Ray, Toxic a different Type or make a different type do the same thing. They are not just limited to that one type. The Types in itself are for dealing or resisting damage based on the opposing type, that's it.

Poison is not really that bad of a defensive type, psychic attacks are somewhat scarce and the terrible abundance of Earthquake makes it somewhat weak, but it resists Grass, Poison, Bug and Fighting (fighting types are everywhere), so it's not exactly bottom of the barrel defensively, actually it can be quite good, specially with levitate

Steel types, just like Fighting types, are also everywhere, so that's the major con of Poison types...
Overall though, I suppose it's not that bad of a type.